One disproof of EP?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Yes, it is. I don't see Cindy's equation violates anything, but I see that you are violating your own rule.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Physics is not a about what you "see" but rather about what works.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I bet you and other physicists disprove the equation with
experiments.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It has been done already, not directly though, because no serious physicist would even attempt to waste money to disprove something like that directly.

I am not a physicist by the way.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

PS: Cindy's equation is free for everyone to use. But, whoever uses it, please do not forget Cindy.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thanks a lot, I should have known that before. I was paying royalties to Einstein for using GR. That will save me a lot of money. Thank you Cindy for making your wonderful discovery free to mankind.

As a matter of fact I used it even today (free of charge) and calculated that 3 apples = 2 pinneapples. I knew that long time ago but thanks to Cindy and her equation I can now calculated it, free of charge of course.

(quoting makis)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Of course, there is quite a number of theorems that go along to satisfy my solution, which I cannot possibly state here.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ah, yes, this was the solution which you once said was simple, in which case it should be simply conveyable. There is an inconsistency here. Beyond this, it has lost its relevance to the forum, and has more utility in the exercise of the navel examination
faculty. Can we get back to the discussion of physics, as opposed to
*un*applied mathematics? Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


Ah, yes, this was the solution which you once said was simple, in which case it should be simply conveyable. There is an inconsistency here. Beyond this, it has lost its relevance to the forum, and has more utility in the exercise of the navel examination
faculty. Can we get back to the discussion of physics, as opposed to
*un*applied mathematics? Thank you.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I see you do not get the point my friend. I screamed loud but you do not hear. What you Cindy and Daisy did was math not Physics and did it wrong. That's what I tried to explain to you with my "simple" math problem, i.e. when you do math there is a little more than just manipulating symbols. More importantly, when you do Physics not only you have to be careful with the symbols but you must also comply with reality. Twice the fun, twice the effort and also twice the need of being precise and consistent, i.e be responsible.